Migron evacuation hits stumbling block

Lawyer representing Migron inhabitants request may change resolution of case.

By DAN IZENBERG
February 13, 2007 19:06
2 minute read.
Migron evacuation hits stumbling block

shas meeting. (photo credit: Matthew Wagner)

 
X

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later

What had appeared to be a straightforward dispute between the state and Palestinian petitioners over when to implement army orders to evacuate the illegal outpost of Migron has become more complicated after a lawyer representing the inhabitants of Migron pleaded his case before the court. A panel of three justices headed by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch called the hearing on Monday to hear a technical request by the petitioners' lawyer, Michael Sfard, for a show-cause order instructing the government to explain why it was not immediately taking the necessary legal steps to dismantle the outpost. Attorney Hanan Meltzer, representing the Migron settlers, argued that several years earlier, in circumstances similar to those of the present case, the court had rejected a petition by former MK Uzi Landau, who had demanded that the police carry out demolition orders against illegally built Palestinian houses in east Jerusalem. According to Meltzer, the court had rejected the petition out of hand, saying that Landau should have included the Palestinians affected by the demolition order and that he should have taken the case to a lower court to resolve the dispute over the alleged illegal construction. Meltzer said by the same token, the High Court should now throw out the Palestinian petition and that the petitioners should have taken the inhabitants of Migron to a lower court to resolve the ownership dispute. Meltzer also argued that the settlers had purchased much of the land on which Migron is located and that other portions were not privately owned by Palestinians but were under the control of the Custodian of Abandoned Property in the civil government. The court was taken by surprise by Meltzer's reference to the Landau petition and gave the state 90 days to reply to this and other arguments. It also gave the petitioners and Meltzer more days to respond to the state's reply. A large group of settlers, headed by Pinchas Wallerstein and Yisrael Harel, rushed to congratulate Meltzer after the court adjourned. The state had agreed with the petitioners regarding the status of Migron. For example, they agreed that the land was privately owned by Palestinians and that the settlers who established Migron had trespassed on their land and established an illegal community. Today, there are 62 mobile homes, three prefabricated buildings, a permanent building under construction and other facilities in the area. During a previous hearing, the High Court had granted the state's request to give it up to five months to determine their position on the timing of the settlement's evacuation. Sfard and the petitioners had agreed to the postponement at that hearing. On Monday, Sfard asked the court for the show-cause order so that if the petitioners did not accept the government's decision, they would not have to start the entire hearing procedure from the beginning, thus losing even more time. The next hearing is not set to take place for four or five months, a period longer than the court had originally granted the state to give its answer to the petition.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

Jisr az-Zarq
April 3, 2014
Residents of Jisr az-Zarqa beckon Israel Trail hikers to enjoy their town

By SHARON UDASIN